debug_calendar_connection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by enumerating the four checks performed (CalDAV connection, calendar accessibility, event search, recent event count). That tells the agent this tool will make live remote calls and what evidence it returns. It does not mention expected latency or whether failures are surfaced as errors versus report content, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact numbered list of the checks performed. Each list item carries distinct information; the only waste is the redundant framing line "It will test:" before the enumeration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the missing piece — what diagnostics are actually run — plus the diagnostic use case. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Debug calendar connection" states a specific verb and resource, and the opening line names the diagnostic output explicitly. It is clearly distinguishable from the CRUD siblings (create_event, list_events, etc.) by being the troubleshooting entry point, though it never names an alternative tool outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"This tool helps diagnose why events might not be showing up" gives a concrete triggering condition an agent can match against a user complaint. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., "do not use for listing calendars — use list_calendars"), so the routing is clear but not complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.